Monday, February 28, 2011

The War on Women

The New York Times published an article that condemns the Republican war on women. We have witnessed such egregious assaults on the rights of women recently that even this conservative newspaper can no longer be silent on the issue:
Republicans in the House of Representatives are mounting an assault on women’s health and freedom that would deny millions of women access to affordable contraception and life-saving cancer screenings and cut nutritional support for millions of newborn babies in struggling families. And this is just the beginning. The budget bill pushed through the House last Saturday included the defunding of Planned Parenthood and myriad other cuts detrimental to women. It’s not likely to pass unchanged, but the urge to compromise may take a toll on these programs. And once the current skirmishing is over, House Republicans are likely to use any legislative vehicle at hand to continue the attack.
Once again, the Republican hypocrisy I wrote about recently is self-evident. On the one hand, legislation aimed at curtailing women's rights to an abortion is being discussed in a variety of states. The Republican majority in Congress states openly that it's main goal at this point is repealing abortion rights. (Jobs? What jobs? Who the hell cares about anything as ridiculously unimportant as that when you can rummage in a woman's uterus instead?). On the other hand, Republicans are trying to make sure that children who have already been born are deprived of health care and nutrition:
Beyond the familiar terrain of abortion or even contraception, House Republicans would inflict harm on low-income women trying to have children or who are already mothers. Their continuing resolution would cut by 10 percent the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known as WIC, which serves 9.6 million low-income women, new mothers, and infants each month, and has been linked in studies to higher birth weight and lower infant mortality. The G.O.P. bill also slices $50 million from the block grant supporting programs providing prenatal health care to 2.5 million low-income women and health care to 31 million children annually.
After all this, how can anybody be blind enough to believe that the Republican anti-abortion frenzy has anything to do with "saving babies"? How can anybody be inhuman enough to support these cannibalistic measures?

I have always been fascinated - in the same way that one is fascinated with really nasty insects - with people who support Republicans. Anybody who has been graced with an ounce of brain matter can see very easily that this is a party that would rob everybody to benefit the tiny group of the extremely rich. That hates women to the degree of having a near epileptic fit whenever a woman tries to live her own life. That would gladly see children from poor families die out. That has come as near fascism as possible and is eagerly awaiting the opportunity to take the next step. How can anybody keep supporting them and still live with themselves? Isn't it obvious that these are vile creeps whose tenancy on the garbage heap of history has been guaranteed for a long time now?

Come on, people, try to forget about women's uteri for a while and concentrate on how many times the Republicans have lied to you. Weren't you told that their goal was to help you through this devastating economic crisis? Well, they lied as usual. Right now they are not only attempting to kill off poor babies but are also trying to destroy the housing rescue programs instituted by Obama's administration. There will be over 2,000,000 foreclosures this year.

Do you really hate women so much that you would keep voting for a party that is robbing you blind? Really? 


Izgad said...

The New York Times is conservative?

Clarissa said...

Of course. This one good article is a pleasant exception in the midst of their extremely conservative pieces.

What else is there to say of Ross Douthat writes for them?

Anonymous said...

I have always associated the Republicans with hypocrisy.

Their recent talks about shutting down the Federal government unless the budget is agreed on - and they complain about unions? Well I guess they don't have to be afraid of being fired for going on strike.

Considering (I'm assuming this) the low number of Republicans coming from liberal environments, perhaps this is their way of releasing all their anger resulting from their repressive, judgmental upbringing by their family and church. Pretty much can be summed up as bullying.

NancyP said...

The NYT is conservative, but most other American major newspapers are as conservative or more conservative. The entire political spectrum has shifted rightward since I was young (1970s).

Tom Carter said...

Way, way over the top, Clarissa. I could sympathize with your point otherwise.

You consider the New York Times to be conservative? I have to wonder what alternate political universe you live in.

Clarissa said...

I have 2 words for everybody who doesn't think NYTimes is conservative: Ross Douthat.

Pagan Topologist said...

is a New York Times link that I came upon. It occurred to me that you might like it. I do not read the Times generally, but sometimes something interesting (to me) appears there.